Current Topics
ICE - the new gestapo
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 11:37 PM
TrumpTrade
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 11:13 PM
gas lighting and the meda
by jgw
Yesterday at 05:11 PM
The Democratic Plan
by chunkstyle
Yesterday at 03:21 AM
small (SMR) and very small (VSMR) nuclear reactors
by Greger
06/23/18 11:22 PM
RoundTable for June 2018
by Jeffery J. Haas
06/23/18 05:41 AM
The Homeless
by jgw
06/20/18 05:47 PM
Dems are going to lose, in Washington, California and Louisiana
by rporter314
06/17/18 02:41 AM
Lying with Impunity
by matthew
06/16/18 10:13 PM
G6 plus one
by NW Ponderer
06/15/18 05:19 AM
The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy
by pondering_it_all
06/14/18 11:14 PM
Antarctica lost 3 trillion tonnes of ice in blink of an eye
by matthew
06/14/18 10:11 PM
Da Singapore Summit!
by pondering_it_all
06/13/18 03:29 AM
What if Star Wars never happened?
by pondering_it_all
06/10/18 05:33 PM
Anthony Bourdain
by pondering_it_all
06/10/18 05:20 PM
What it will take to curb the President
by pondering_it_all
06/09/18 05:48 AM
The failure of the public school system
by pondering_it_all
06/08/18 11:10 PM
Sorting it out
by logtroll
06/06/18 10:40 PM
Allam Cycle - Zero Emissions Nat Gas Power Plant
by pondering_it_all
06/04/18 08:23 PM
The American Dream
by Jeffery J. Haas
06/02/18 10:08 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
58 Forums
16292 Topics
280476 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#304609 - 12/23/17 10:10 PM Moderation and good will
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1967
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
We have to start defining what we are talking about. I have asked around about, for instance, the difference between progressive and liberal. I have been told that progressives are to the left of liberals. The strange thing is that none of this actually makes any difference. Instead of the politics of liberal, progressive, socialist, etc., and then loading the whole boat into a single political party (in this case the Democrats) is strange. We have a two party system and that system reflects Right and Left, nothing less nothing more. The left, for instance, is supposed to hold all them liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. and, in general, these different groups are all on the left and should vote for the banners of the left, ie. Democratic. T

Te problem with the system is that things get in the way of this. The Bernie supporters, for instance, whilst claiming the left voted for Trump and are, at least in part, responsible for Trump because they were in a snit. Folks tend, for instance, to let crap to get between themselves are where they really are. Somebody who doesn't like abortions, for instance, are quite capable of actually being on the left (irregardless of all the baggage abortion brings with it). The problem is simple, and I believe it applies to both sides. People tend to get sidelined on personal druthers. I know, for instance, any number of so called conservatives who love to say that their perfect candidate is one who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Their problem, of course, is that the right is, currently and seemingly, controlled by the religious right (not so much politically but religiously). I can remember when they made their move in this regard and, at the time, there was a LOT of talk about it. In the end, however, the religious right won. "religious right" refers to groups who put religion in front of everything else and are, basically, the extremists religious true believers. An example of this group would be those who actually believe that the End is near and what is left is that for all the Jews to convert to Christianity (really!). To this end they own a lot (possibly even most) of the radio stations in Israel. Anyway, on the left we have the battles between just how left one is. This runs from communism/socialism to middle of the roaders. The problem, for the left, is that each little group wants to be in charge and run everything and the others won't let that happen so there is constant tension. This is ok I guess, the problem is that all facets of the left have to vote as a block, even if they don't get their own way. If they don't, you get Trump, and its time for them to, for all practical purposes, start to march in step instead of flying off in all directions. The Democratic party is where they get to fight out who does/manages/gets, etc. The current problem seems to be they don't seem to be able to sit down and work it out. This is, in the end, the same problem congress seems to also have.

All this started with Gingrich and the philosophy of not giving an inch. The Republicans embraced that crap and then communicated that disease to the left as well as the entire right. Its pretty simple and goes like; "if I don't get my way nobody else does either". If the nation is to survive, where it exists for EVERYBODY, this has to end and I don't know how to get our elected class to do it. I think this also has a lot to do with greed. An example of which is the current so called, tax cut or tax overhaul, which is neither an overhaul or a cut but, rather, a sacrifice, and sell out, of everything so that the rich will continue to support the Right.

Unfortunately, currently, the Right has decided that its time to do away with all entitlements (their wet dream). The main ones are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and they want them gone. The current Trump budget details this and they are making no bones about it, other than to half heartedly denying the objective facts of it all.

The good news is that, next year, gov will start to take 25 billion out of Medicare and another 25 out of Medicaid which should, if they are not asleep, upset the base of the right (we will see). The right is also working hard to get rid of all public education and Voss has made no doubt that is the plan. They are also working hard to get rid of any gov based work on the environment as well as a lot more (I have tried to list some of this my "what Trump has done" topic. Remember, a true conservative is, basically, against regulation - ALL regulation! Their argument is simple, it goes like; "We are over regulated which takes away our freedom" Then they will give lots of examples , many of which are even true. This, in turn, brings up the next problem and that is our problem of going to extremes. We are currently in a cycle where the right is going to extremes but the left has certainly had their days of extreme regulation as well. The two main problems are, then, for both sides, is lack of moderation and not giving an inch. I truly believe that the solution is that the sides have to understand they are not there to win but to do their best for the nation. I further believe that when the two sides sit down to legislate nobody should give an inch so much as find a middle ground and legislate that much. If both sides were willing to do that we would be, right now, in a MUCH better place!

So, the big fight is currently whether the nation should give up ALL so called entitlements or not - it kinda boils down to that I think. After that one is decided then everybody should calm down and try to find a place for moderation, good will, and doing the nation's work rather than treating governance as some kind of football game where each side sets out to destroy the other side.

Top
#304610 - 12/23/17 10:17 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40893
Loc: Puget Sound, WA

I view Dems as being center-right like the Clintons, Gores, Pelosi's, and Progressives like Bernie Sanders. I view countries like Germany, Japan, Australia, United States, and Canada as center-right, while countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland as Progressive.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#304611 - 12/23/17 10:35 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40893
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: jgw
...All this started with Gingrich and the philosophy of not giving an inch...

Yet Newt was more than happy to give an inch or three to any woman not his wife. coffee
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#304631 - 12/24/17 09:51 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1967
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
referring to norther europe as being progress is interesting. For instance, Northern Europe is not advocating any social reform, they have done that and it works. The reason it works is because they have a system of gov that actually works, that has not been demonized by them that hate gov, and an obviously educated voting public as well as an elected class that is there to help the nation rather than reducing their politics to nothing better than a kindofa football game.

The word itself:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressive

Top
#304645 - 12/25/17 03:13 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15969
I think people, in general, like to coopt words. I consider myself progressive, meaning center-left, rather than liberal, meaning far left. Now the far-left-liberals are attempting to coopt the word for their extremism to hide from bad press, and it pisses me off. Admit that you're liberal, and leave my word alone! Similarly, the current crop of revanchists cloak themselves in the wool of conservatism, but they are nothing of the sort. Stop lying!

I'm a Moderate. I believe that government can do good and is limited by the Constitution. We have checks and balances for a reason, but that does not prevent change or progress. In years past, even conservative jurists believed in a "living" Constitution, especially the founding fathers.

Proper governing requires accepting responsibility, and governing for ALL of the people, not just your voters. Rational thought has given way to extreme partisanship and hostility to governing. I believe any legislator who voted FOR this abominable tax cut should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail - period. They are no better than our worst enemies. Mitch McConnell is a traitor. And I mean that as defined in the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." statute . He has actively subverted the Constitution, and given aid and comfort to our enemies, as has Trump. Just ask Putin.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#304662 - 12/26/17 10:58 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1967
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
You are right about the words. My kids, for instance, consider "pregressive" to be the folks on the far left and the liberals are center left. This leads me to believe that the words "liberal" and "progressive" are non-specific but tend to describe them on the left to one degree or another. How about; far left, left, liberal, progressive? This is actually one of them deals that really makes no difference at all. The trick is to get ALL the lefties (no matter what word they think applies to them) onboard, when it comes to voting, irregardless of individual quibbles. I trick, I suspect, is to not go overboard when it comes to Democratic planks so there is room for all the lefties.

Top
#304663 - 12/27/17 12:04 AM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 8802
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
My own preference is to define 'progressive' as non-ideological left leaning.
_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll

Top
#304664 - 12/27/17 03:07 AM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7626
Loc: North San Diego County
I think the label Liberal goes way back to England, where it was the Tories versus the Liberals. The modern equivalent is the centrist part of the Democratic Party who pretty much are satisfied with the relationship of individuals with the government under Obama AND under Clinton.

To the left is Progressives: FDR New Deal types who want to make some changes, but nothing that fundamentally changes the economy. (That's the progress they are after.) They like marriage equality, marijuana decriminalization, and ending the death penalty.

Left of them are Socialists who want to make some big changes. Single payer, free college for all, universal basic income, etc.

I would say I am Progressive and admire some Socialist ideas, but I don't think they would work very well. So I'm too pragmatic to be a Socialist.

Top
#304667 - 12/27/17 02:23 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: pondering_it_all]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40893
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
To the left is Progressives: FDR New Deal types who want to make some changes, but nothing that fundamentally changes the economy. (That's the progress they are after.) They like marriage equality, marijuana decriminalization, and ending the death penalty.

Left of them are Socialists who want to make some big changes. Single payer, free college for all, universal basic income, etc.

I would say I am Progressive and admire some Socialist ideas, but I don't think they would work very well. So I'm too pragmatic to be a Socialist.

I agree with your whole statement.

For me, it would be: Socialists...Progressives...Liberals...Centrists/Moderates/Center-Right...Liberal Republicans...Conservatives(Regressives)...Fascists

I would say that I am a socialist-leaning Progressive. smile
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#304668 - 12/27/17 04:47 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: pdx rick]
Greger Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 13952
Loc: Florida
Quote:
Socialists...Progressives...Liberals...Centrists/Moderates/Center-Right...Liberal Republicans...Conservatives(Regressives)...Fascists


"Liberal Republicans" sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me.

Socialists/Progressives/Liberals/Centrists/Moderates/Center-Right seems to cover the Democratic Party pretty effectively. It's a big tent. I'm not really aware of any Republicans as far left as Center-Right anymore. There's a gap between even that and the ones we call "Moderate Republicans" these days.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde

Top
#304669 - 12/27/17 04:57 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: pdx rick]
Greger Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 13952
Loc: Florida

What socialist leaning Progressives need to get a handle on is that big changes require really massive voter support to take place. Support that we simply don't have at this time or we'd have Bernie or Hillary and a supportive Congress up there actually making America great again instead of Trump and his authoritarian minions.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde

Top
#304670 - 12/27/17 06:30 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: Greger]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 8802
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Fact is, there's no clean definition for "Progressive" because it isn't an organized party with a platform. I think most of us like the term because it implies thinking outside the box, and obviously, 'progressing' (making progress).

In my small community there are three organized politically active groups; Republicans, Democrats, and the progressive voter's alliance. Many of the PVA folks also attend Dem meetings, though I don't usually, unless there is an interesting agenda. I wouldn't say the PVA is to the left or right of the Dems, but the people who show up are more interested in functional and pragmatic solutions, especially around the economy and the environment.

We used to have a TEAParty group but they dried up several years ago.
_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll

Top
#304671 - 12/27/17 06:37 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: logtroll]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 8802
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Funny thing is that the local Progressives and the TEAParty actually were on the same side of several issues and would sometimes attend each other's meetings to work together. However, we were never on the same side for the same reasons...
_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll

Top
#304672 - 12/27/17 07:39 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1967
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
We shouldn't forget the various groups that make up the Republicans. Right now, for instance, there is the group, led by Speaker Ryan, who are getting ready to gut our "entitled" economy. Their plan, basically, is to privatize just about everything; medicare, madicaud, education, social security, etc. Not only that but they are their way to actually pulling it off. Its really pretty simple. Run the debt WAAAAAY up, scare everybody to death with talk of national bankruptcy, and, then, start reducing gov (starve the beast). Then there are the genuine conservatives which can take two roads. The first, and oldest, are the fiscal conservatives. Their belief is that government finances are exactly the same as personal finance and it needs to be taken care of. To this end they too are for raising the debt to unsustainable levels to force a balancing of the budget and getting rid of any deficits. Then there are the Social Conservatives. These are the ones who know what is best for everybody insofar as their relationship with their god (a moving target). Their goal is, basically, to tell everybody how they must act, believe, pray and worship. Since they, obviously, are the ones who speak directly to the Lord they must be obeyed or they will kill you (not really but it seemed to fit <g>) This means that the Repulblicans tend to only have 2 basic groups that need to exist with one another and they are pretty well defined (unlike the messy Dems).

It used to be that the Democrats, and the Republicans made up the lion's share of American voters and, in the middle (for the most part) were the 'independents". Now, however, the 'independents' seem to be the majority of voters as the parties themselves have failed not only their own membership but voters in general. They, basically, worked this miracle by providing truly lousy candidates, are so worked up over money they will, apparently, do anything to get more, are unable to gain much traction with most of the electorate because they figured they were the only 2 games in town so screw 'em. So, we are now a republic with two embedded parties who represent a minority of the voting public. The interesting thing about this is that both parties are so delighted with the current system of Politics, which, apparently, is just considered a big football game to be won or lost and only the winners get to say what's what because the losing side are just a bunch of losers. Now, however, we are in modern times where the voters are so turned off by it all that they thought they might try something a bit different so we have Trump A guy who has ignored all the 'rules', does as he damn well pleases, lies with impunity, behaves like a spoiled 4 year old, seems incredibly ignorant, cheats at golf, and just may arrange to get us into a nuclear are, with, again apparently, the backing of the entire Republican party which has proven its fealty to their master Trump by eschewing all integrity, honesty or good faith. I have found their very public kissing of their leader's behind to be particularly disgusting and really hard to watch.

The secret might be to reconstitute both parties where both actually have all the citizens welfare as their central goal rather than what they can do to raise more money to buy ads that, basically, lie, scare, promise, and little else.

Top
#304678 - 12/27/17 09:35 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: pondering_it_all]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15969
I kinda follow the history as described in Wikipedia:

Quote:
In the late 19th century, a political view rose in popularity in the Western world that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and a need for measures to address these problems.[11] Progressivism has influenced various political movements. Modern liberalism was influenced by liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill's conception of people being "progressive beings".[12] British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli developed progressive conservatism under "One Nation" Toryism.[13][14] Similarly in Imperial Germany, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck enacted various progressive social welfare measures out of conservative motivations to distance workers from the socialist movement of the time and as humane ways to assist in maintaining the Industrial Revolution.[15] Proponents of social democracy have identified themselves as promoting the progressive cause.[16] The Roman Catholic Church encyclical Rerum novarum issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, condemned the exploitation of labour and urged support for labour unions, government regulation of businesses in the interests of social justice, while upholding the rights of private property and criticizing socialism.[17] A Protestant progressive outlook called the Social Gospel emerged in North America that focused on challenging economic exploitation and poverty, and by the mid-1890s the Social Gospel was common in many Protestant theological seminaries in the United States.[18] In 1892, during a major political contest between landlords and tenants, the landlord advocates were known as the "moderates" and the land value tax reformers were known as the "progressives".[19]

In America, progressivism began as a social movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and grew into a political movement, in what was known as the Progressive Era. While the term "American progressives" represent a range of diverse political pressure groups (not always united), some American progressives rejected Social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change.[20] American President Theodore Roosevelt of the U.S. Republican Party and later the U.S. Progressive Party, declared that he "always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand".[21] American President Woodrow Wilson was also a member of the American progressive movement, within the Democratic Party.


I think the inclusion of Theodore Roosevelt (who was clearly a progressive) and Woodrow Wilson as "progressives", and the inclusion of "conservative progressivism" puts the movement closer to the middle, but I can be persuaded. I've always thought of "liberal" as between "socialist" and "progressive." I think FDR was a progressive, but certainly not a liberal, as he was quite clearly tied to capitalism as a central tenet of the American economy.

Be that as it may, I am in the Roosevelt wing of progressivism (both of them). Capitalism has its place, but it is not at the center of the universe. The triple-bottom-line approach is consistent with both of their approaches to governing - something the modern Republican/revanchist party has abandoned. (Remember Nixon supported the EPA, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (if reluctantly), and tried to impose limitations on the economy as well, and he was certainly no "Liberal".) The purpose of our government is to provide for the "general welfare," and that includes economic, social (education, health, etc.) and environmental well-being.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#304679 - 12/27/17 10:46 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7626
Loc: North San Diego County
"Progressive" has always been defined as "whatever the conservative powers that be are against". So at times it has looked pretty damned conservative by our standards, but not really in context. Being in favor of prison for stealing bread would have been progressive when the standard penalty was hanging. Now I think it has to be left of something and what it's left of is the centrists in the Democratic party.

Top
#304683 - 12/28/17 01:09 AM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: Greger]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40893
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Greger
What socialist leaning Progressives need to get a handle on is that big changes require really massive voter support to take place. Support that we simply don't have at this time or we'd have Bernie or Hillary and a supportive Congress up there actually making America great again instead of Trump and his authoritarian minions.

Actually we did have HClinton - it's just that those pesky parliamentary procedures called the Electoral College got in the way...again! mad
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#304926 - 01/06/18 10:38 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7626
Loc: North San Diego County
What do you think about adding some pragmatic processes to our government?

In every bill, we could require explicit sections explaining exactly what the bill is trying to accomplish, who it's going to help or harm, and how we're going to measure those effects. Then we create another non-partisan government department like the Congressional Budget Office, to gather the data on the effects of each bill and evaluate how effective it is. All of that data would go in a public database with a feedback section.

Congressmen and the public could comment on the intent of a new bill, because they may agree or not on that intent. They could also comment on the means to implement it, again pro or con. Finally, after the bill is law they could comment on the results.

I think we could improve the operation of our government by doing this, mostly by preventing a lot of obfuscation that is our current MO.

Top
#305126 - 01/16/18 08:49 AM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15969
This whole sideshow about Congressional Representatives going to the White House to seek Trump's "input" on a DACA bill is a farce. Who cares what Trump thinks? Pass a friggin bill and put it in front of him. THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES. He either signs it, or he doesn't, and then a Congressional override is possible. It's all out in public, and we'll all see him for what he really is.

There are clear majorities of both parties that support passing a bill. The only question is whether a super majority can be mustered.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#305127 - 01/16/18 03:03 PM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: pdx rick]
Ujest Shurly Offline
newbie

Registered: 10/16/16
Posts: 302
Loc: Sterling Heights, MI, USA
Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
What socialist leaning Progressives need to get a handle on is that big changes require really massive voter support to take place. Support that we simply don't have at this time or we'd have Bernie or Hillary and a supportive Congress up there actually making America great again instead of Trump and his authoritarian minions.

Actually we did have HClinton - it's just that those pesky parliamentary procedures called the Electoral College got in the way...again! mad


To my way of thinking, Gerrymandering is the root of this evil. Gerrymandering gave the Republicans control in Congress and many State Legislatures - thus tilting the Electoral College to the Right and Far Right


Edited by Ujest Shurly (01/16/18 03:04 PM)
_________________________
Vote 2018

Life is like a PB&J sandwich
The older you get, the moldery and crustier you get.

Now, get off my grass!

Top
#305139 - 01/17/18 01:14 AM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7626
Loc: North San Diego County
A state gets electors for each congressional district and two for their Senators, but I think the allocation for each state is based on the popular state-wide vote. Some states are winner-take-all and some are proportional, but I don't see how gerrymandering could affect the way electors vote.

Top
#305247 - 01/23/18 03:54 AM Re: Moderation and good will [Re: jgw]
Jeffery J. Haas Online   sick


Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 13163
Loc: Whittier, California
But it has most definitely distorted city, county, state and Congressional representation and that gets expressed in all mid-term, city, county and state elections, and it also has a distorting influence on who gets seated in the courts.
_________________________
"He wakes up in the morning, ****s all over Twitter, ****s all over us, ****s all over his staff, then hits golf balls."
---Congressman Peter King

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 50 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2